3-i 

CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 MARKET ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 3-3

3.2.1 Trade Association ................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.2 Manufacturers and Market Share ............................................................................ 3-3

3.2.2.1 Small Businesses ...................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.3 Regulatory Programs .............................................................................................. 3-5

3.2.3.1 Natural Resources Canada ....................................................................... 3-6

3.2.3.2 Australia and New Zealand ...................................................................... 3-7

3.2.4 Non-Regulatory Initiatives...................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.4.1 ENERGY STAR ...................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.4.1 Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) ...................................... 3-8

3.2.4.2 Consortium for Energy Efficiency ........................................................... 3-9

3.2.4.3 Rebate Programs .................................................................................... 3-10

3.2.5 Equipment Classes ................................................................................................ 3-11

3.2.6 Shipments and Available Equipment .................................................................... 3-12

3.2.6.1 Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Data ................ 3-12

3.2.6.2 North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers Data. 3-13

3.2.6.3 Census Bureau Data ............................................................................... 3-14

3.2.7 Equipment Lifetimes ............................................................................................. 3-14

3.3 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 3-15

3.3.1 Baseline Equipment Components and Operation ................................................. 3-15

3.3.1.1 Basic Equipment Description and Components .................................... 3-15

3.3.1.2 Batch Process ......................................................................................... 3-17

3.3.1.3 Continuous Process ................................................................................ 3-22

3.3.2 Technology Options .............................................................................................. 3-24

3.3.2.1 Compressor ............................................................................................ 3-25

3.3.2.2 Condenser .............................................................................................. 3-27

3.3.2.3 Higher Efficiency Condenser Fans and Fan Motors .............................. 3-28

3.3.2.4 Improved Auger Motor Efficiency ........................................................ 3-28

3.3.2.5 Improved Pump Motor Efficiency ......................................................... 3-29

3.3.2.6 Evaporator .............................................................................................. 3-29

3.3.2.7 Improved or Thicker Insulation ............................................................. 3-30

3.3.2.8 Larger Diameter Suction Line (Remote Compressor Models) .............. 3-30

3.3.2.9 Reduced Potable Water Flow................................................................. 3-30

3.3.2.10 Drain Water Thermal Exchange ............................................................ 3-31

3.3.3 Energy Use Data ................................................................................................... 3-31

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 3-38
3-ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.2.1 NRCan Efficiency Standard for Continuous Automatic Commercial Ice Makers ... 3-6

Table 3.2.2 ENERGY STAR Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Key Criteria* ........................ 3-8

Table 3.2.3 Performance Requirements for Federal Purchases of Air-Cooled Ice Makers ......... 3-8

Table 3.2.4 Performance Requirement for Federal Purchases of Water-Cooled Ice Makers ...... 3-9

Table 3.2.5 CEE Efficiency Requirements for Air-Cooled Ice Makers .................................... 3-10

Table 3.2.6 CEE Efficiency Requirements for Water-Cooled Ice Makers ................................ 3-10

Table 3.2.7 Automatic Commercial Ice-Making Equipment Classes........................................ 3-12

Table 3.2.8 AHRI 2010 Shipments of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers, by Equipment Class 3-

13

Table 3.2.9 NAFEM Ice Maker Category Cross Reference with DOE Equipment Classes ..... 3-14

Table 3.2.10 Census Bureau Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Shipments ............................ 3-14

Table 3.2.11 Estimates for Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Lifetimes ................................. 3-15

Table 3.3.1 Brief Description of Primary Refrigeration System Components .......................... 3-17

Table 3.3.2 Batch Evaporator Designs ...................................................................................... 3-19

Table 3.3.3 Technology Options for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers ................................ 3-25

Table 3.3.4 Compressor Rating Conditions (oF (oC))................................................................ 3-26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.2.1 Domestic Refrigerated Display Case Market Shares as of 1996 ............................. 3-4

Figure 3.3.1 Typical Vapor Compression Refrigeration Cycle for Batch Type Ice Makers ..... 3-18

Figure 3.3.2 Cracked Ice Forming on “Cracked Ice” Evaporators ............................................ 3-20

Figure 3.3.3 Water System Diagram for Batch Type Ice Makers ............................................. 3-21

Figure 3.3.4 Typical Vapor Compression Refrigeration Cycle for Continuous Ice Makers ..... 3-23

Figure 3.3.5 Cross-Section of Continuous Evaporator and Auger ............................................ 3-24

Figure 3.3.6 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Cube Ice-Making Heads) .... 3-32

Figure 3.3.7 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Water-Cooled Batch Ice-Making Heads) .. 3-

33

Figure 3.3.8 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Cube Remote Condensing 

Units).................................................................................................................. 3-33

Figure 3.3.9 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Non-Cube-Batch Remote 

Condensing Units) ............................................................................................. 3-34

Figure 3.3.10 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Cube Self-Contained Units) . 3-

34

Figure 3.3.11 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Water-Cooled Cube Self-Contained Units)

............................................................................................................................ 3-35

Figure 3.3.12 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Flake/Nugget Ice-Making 

Heads) ................................................................................................................ 3-35

Figure 3.3.13 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Water-Cooled Flake/Nugget Ice-Making 

Heads) ................................................................................................................ 3-36

Figure 3.3.14 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Flake/Nugget Remote 

Condensing Units) ............................................................................................. 3-36

Figure 3.3.15 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Flake/Nugget Self-Contained 

Units).................................................................................................................. 3-37
3-iii

Figure 3.3.16 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Water-Cooled Flake/Nugget SelfContained Units) ................................................................................................ 3-37
3-1 

CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter details the market and technology assessment that the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) has conducted in support of the ongoing energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for automatic commercial ice makers, including self-contained ice makers with air or 

water cooling; ice-making heads with air or water cooling; remote condensing and remote 

compressor ice makers; and remote condensing (but not remote compressor) ice makers. 

Automatic commercial ice makers produce a range of ice types, including cube type ice, flake 

ice, nugget ice, tube type ice, and cracked or fragmented ice. The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes energy conservation standards for automatic commercial 

ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds of ice per 

24-hour period.a (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) Review of these standards is required by EPCA prior to

January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)) DOE is also proposing, under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2), 

standards for other types of ice makers and equipment with capacities up to 4,000 lb/24 hours. 

This chapter consists of a market and technology assessment. The purpose of the market 

assessment is to develop a qualitative and quantitative characterization of the automatic 

commercial ice-making (ACIM) equipment industry and market structure based on publicly 

available information and information submitted by manufacturers and other stakeholders. 

Manufacturer characteristics and market shares, existing regulatory and non-regulatory 

efficiency improvement initiatives, equipment classes, and trends in markets and equipment 

characteristics are addressed. The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a 

preliminary list of technologies that could improve the efficiency of automatic commercial ice 

makers. 

Automatic commercial ice makers are used in several types of commercial sectors, 

including health care, lodging, foodservice, retail, education, food sales, and office buildings. 

Definitions

EPCA defines “automatic commercial ice maker” as a factory-made assembly (not 

necessarily shipped in one package) that: 

1. consists of a condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated unit, 

with means for making and harvesting ice; and 

2. may include means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing ice. 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(19)) 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) set energy and condenser water usage 

standards for cube type icemakers capable of producing between 50 and 2,500 lb/24 hours, and 

added the definition given above to EPCA. EPACT 2005 further established standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice based on: (1) the configuration of 

 

a Pounds of ice per 24-hour period is abbreviated herein as lb/24 hours.
3-2 

the ice-making and refrigeration systems; (2) the type of cooling media used; and (3) the 

capacity of the unit.

Accordingly, the main categories of equipment covered under this rulemaking are as 

follows. 

1. Self-contained automatic commercial ice makers: A self-contained automatic 

commercial ice maker is a category in which the ice-making machinery, including 

freezing, harvesting, and condensing components, and storage compartment, are in an 

integral cabinet. Self-contained automatic commercial ice makers tend to have lower 

harvest capacity, are typically used in office buildings and retail applications, and are 

generally designed to fit under counters. 

2. Ice-Making Head: An ice-making head is a category in which the ice-making 

machinery, including freezing, harvesting, and condensing components, is integrated 

into one unit that does not include a means for storing ice. Ice-making heads are 

generally mounted on top of separately sold storage bins.

3. Remote Condensing Ice Makers: For automatic commercial ice makers, two remote 

condensing configurations exist. In one configuration, the compressor is contained 

within the same cabinet as the ice freezing and harvesting equipment, while the 

condenser is located in a separate package. This configuration is referred to in this 

rulemaking as “remote condensing (but not remote compressor).” In the other 

configuration, the compressor is located remotely from the cabinet containing the ice 

freezing and harvesting equipment, typically with the condenser in a remote 

condensing unit. This configuration can also be designed for connection to an existing 

remote compressor rack and is referred to as “remote condensing and remote 

compressor” in this rulemaking. Remote condensing units are typically larger ice 

makers, with harvest capacities up to 4,000 lb/24 hours for commercial ice makers.

In addition to the foregoing categories of ice-making equipment, self-contained units and 

ice-making heads are also categorized by the means used for disposing of the heat extracted from 

water when making ice. 

1. Air Cooled: Ice makers are referred to as air cooled if the waste heat from the 

condenser is released directly into the air.

2. Water Cooled: Ice makers are referred to as water cooled if the heat removed from 

potable water during the ice-making process is rejected into water in the condenser. 

Ice makers can be attached to closed cooling-water loops that recirculate and reuse 

the same cooling water or can be installed with open-loop (or single-pass) cooling 

systems that use water one time for cooling and then release it into the wastewater 

system. 

Most remote condensing ice makers feature air-cooled condensers, and the EPCA ACIM 

efficiency standards apply specifically to air-cooled equipment. DOE notes that at least one 

remote condensing ice maker features a water-cooled condenser. 
3-3 

The third differentiating factor within the equipment configuration and cooling type is the 

harvest capacity of a given ice maker. Harvest capacity is defined in terms of the amount of ice 

an ice maker can produce in 24 hours. 

3.2 MARKET ASSESSMENT

The following market assessment identifies the manufacturer trade association, domestic 

manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers, manufacturer market share, regulatory 

programs, and non-regulatory initiatives; defines equipment classes; provides historical shipment 

data, shipment projections, and equipment lifetime estimates; and summarizes market 

performance data.

3.2.1 Trade Association 

The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI, formerly the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute, or ARI, and the Gas Appliance Manufacturers 

Association, or GAMA) is the most prominent trade association for automatic commercial ice 

maker manufacturers. AHRI coordinated with member manufacturers to establish the Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers and Ice Storage Bins division within AHRI. This division serves to 

develop standards and implement a certification program for automatic commercial ice makers

and storage bins. 

The technical activities of AHRI include: 

• working to harmonize international equipment standards; 

• developing industry performance standards for automatic commercial ice makers; 

• updating industry guidelines for operation and installation of ACIM equipment; 

• communicating with refrigerant suppliers and government agencies about 

environmentally acceptable refrigerants; and, 

• providing input to government agencies concerning regulations affecting the industry. 

3.2.2 Manufacturers and Market Share

Current members of AHRI’s Automatic Commercial Ice Makers and Ice Storage Bins 

division are listed below; parent companies are shown in parentheses if applicable.1

• Hoshizaki America, Inc.

• IMI Cornelius, Inc. 

• ITV Ice Makers SA

• KD Industries, Inc./Kold Draft (Erie Management Group, LLC)

• Manitowoc Ice, Inc. (The Manitowoc Company, Inc.) 

• Mile High Equipment LLC/Ice-O-Matic (Scotsman Industries)

• Scotsman Ice Systems (Scotsman Industries)
3-4 

Other automatic commercial ice maker manufacturers are listed below; parent companies 

are shown in parentheses if applicable.

• A&V Refrigeration

• Arctic-Temp/Holiday Ice, Inc.

• Brema Ice Makers

• Follett Ice Makers (VGI Holdings Corp) 

• Howe Corporation 

• North Star Ice

• Orien U.S.A.

• Summit Appliance (Felix Storch, Inc.)

• Vogt Ice, LLC (Vogt Power International) 

According to a recent study by Koeller & Company, the ice maker market is dominated 

by four manufacturers of automatic ice makers, who produce approximately 90 percent of the 

automatic commercial ice makers for sale in the United States.

2 The four major manufacturers

with the largest market share are Manitowoc (30 percent market share), Scotsman (25 percent), 

Hoshizaki (20 percent), and Mile High Equipment LLC/Ice-O-Matic (15 percent). See Figure 

3.2.1. Koeller cited a 1996 report by Arthur D. Little, Inc. 

Source: Koeller and Company, Potential Best Management Practices, June 2008. 

Figure 3.2.1 Domestic Refrigerated Display Case Market Shares as of 1996 

The landscape of the automatic commercial ice maker market has changed since this data 

was published in 1996. At about the same time that the data on Figure 3.2.1 was compiled, the 

parent company of Mile High Equipment LLC/Ice-O-Matic was acquired by Enodis, PLC. 

Enodis then acquired Scotsman industries in 1999.3 Thus, these two companies no longer existed 

as independent and separate entities. 

Manitowoc

30%

Scotsman

25%

Hoshizaki

20%

Mile High 

Equipment 

LLC/Ice-OMatic

15%

IMI Cornelius 

and Others

10%
3-5 

In 2008, Manitowoc agreed to purchase Enodis, PLC. At the time, Manitowoc was 

believed to control 40 percent of the market for cube-making machines, and Enodis controlled 

30 percent. The Manitowoc purchase of Enodis, PLC would have concentrated a vast majority of 

automatic commercial ice maker production in the hands of one company. In a settlement 

agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, Manitowoc agreed to divest the U.S. ice machine 

business lines, including Ice-O-Matic and Scotsman. Manitowoc sold the ice machine business 

lines to Warburg Pincus Private Equity X, L.P., who announced they would use the Scotsman 

name.4,5 Thus, the ice-making companies have been consolidated since this data was collected.

The three largest firms—Manitowoc, Scotsman/Ice-O-Matic, and Hoshizaki—are believed to 

continue to control approximately 90 percent of the market in the United States. 

3.2.2.1 Small Businesses

DOE will consider the possibility that energy conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers would adversely affect small businesses. The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) defines small business manufacturing enterprises for the commercial 

refrigeration equipment, in general, as those having 750 employees or fewer.6 SBA lists small 

business size standards for industries as they are described in the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS). The size standard for an industry is the largest that a for-profit 

concern can be in that industry and still qualify as a small business for Federal Government 

programs. These size standards are generally expressed in terms of the average annual receipts or 

the average employment of a firm. For commercial refrigeration equipment,b the size standard is 

matched to NAICS code 333415, Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and 

Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing, and is 750 employees. 

DOE will study the potential impacts on these small businesses in detail during the 

manufacturer impact analysis, which will be conducted as a part of the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) analysis. As part of the NOPR for test procedures, DOE identified eight

small business manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers. 76 FR 18428 (April 4, 2011). 

DOE will perform a similar analysis for the energy conservation standards in the NOPR phase.

3.2.3 Regulatory Programs

Outside of the United States, Canada and Australia and New Zealand have efficiency 

standards for automatic commercial ice makers. 

Within the United States, several states (Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington) 

have established efficiency regulations for automatic commercial ice makers. The state standards 

all regulate cube type ice makers only. California’s standards were adopted in 2004, and were

based on the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) Tier 1 and Federal guidelines for 

purchasing energy efficient equipment. The California standards also match those passed by the 

U.S. Congress as part of EPACT 2005. All other state standards were based on the 

California/EPACT 2005 standards, and became effective January 1, 2008. The state standards 

 

b Automatic commercial ice makers is a small component of the equipment manufacturing category, NAICS code 

333415. This NAICS category covers a broad segment of heating, ventilation, and refrigeration equipment 

manufacturing including commercial refrigeration, commercial ice makers, heat pumps, air conditioners, warm air 

furnaces, air conditioners, and a number of other types of equipment and components.
3-6 

have since been pre-empted by the Federal standards set forth in EPACT 2005 and effective 

January 1, 2010. 

3.2.3.1 Natural Resources Canada 

The Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Office of Energy Efficiency established energy

efficiency standards for automatic commercial ice makers on December 31, 1998. The NRCan 

standard covers all equipment between 23 and 1,000 kilograms per day (a kilogram equals 

roughly 2.2 lb), and covers not just batch ice but also continuous ice (flake and nugget). 

NRCan’s standard had a compliance date of January 1, 2008. 

The NRCan standards are similar to the EPACT 2005 standards in that the covered batch 

equipment types are broken out into similar categories. However, NRCan standards cover 

additional equipment not covered by EPACT 2005 standards, including continuous type ice 

makers and batch type ice makers that produce other than cube type ice. The NRCan efficiency 

standards also establish minimum storage effectiveness levels for ice storage bins on selfcontained ice makers. As noted in the preliminary technical support document (TSD) chapter 2, 

DOE is considering not regulating storage energy usage as part of this rulemaking. 

Table 3.2.1 lists the NRCan equipment classes for continuous type automatic commercial 

ice makers, converted to units equivalent to those used in the current DOE cube type efficiency

standard set by EPACT 2005. For batch process equipment, the NRCan standards are the same 

as those set by EPACT 2005 when units are converted to those used in the United States. As a 

result, Table 3.2.1 only shows continuous classes. 

NRCan does not require adjustments of continuous ice maker usage for ice hardness. Nor 

does the continuous ice maker efficiency standard differentiate by the type of equipment (i.e., 

ice-making head, self-contained, units with remote condensing). The NRCan website indicates 

the continuous process efficiency standard went into effect January 1, 2000. 

Table 3.2.1 NRCan Efficiency Standard for Continuous Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Equipment Type Type of Cooling

Ice-Making 

Capacity

lb/24 hours*

Maximum Energy Use

kWh/100 lb**,***

All Continuous Machines Air < 660

≥ 660

11.03 – 0.0064 x C

6.79

All Continuous Machines Water < 660

≥ 660

9.33– 0.0051 x C

5.94

Source: NRCan website.

* The NRCan standard expressed capacity in terms of kilograms per 24 hours. DOE converted this to lb/24 hours. 

** The NRCan standard expressed energy usage in terms of kJ/kg (kilojoule per kilogram). DOE converted this 

to kWh/100 lb.

*** The NRCan standard expressed C as capacity (ice harvest rate) in kilograms per 24 hours. DOE converted 

this to kWh/100 lb.

www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/regulations/product/automatic_ice_makers.cfm?attr=0
3-7 

3.2.3.2 Australia and New Zealand 

Australia and New Zealand have also established required efficiency standards for

automatic commercial ice makers and storage bins.7 The minimum energy performance 

standards are established in Australian Standard AS/NZS 4865.3:2008 as maximum energy 

consumption per 100 kg of ice. The Australian standards categorize equipment by the following 

criteria:

• modular type ice makers, air cooled and water cooled (two size categories) 

• self-contained ice makers, air cooled and water cooled (two size categories) 

• split system, air-cooled, remote condensing but not remote compressor 

• split system, air-cooled, remote condensing and remote compressor 

• storage systems

The standards apply to cube, flake, and nugget machines without distinguishing between 

the machines and, apparently, without adjusting continuous ice maker energy usage for ice 

hardness. The Australian standards also establish a high efficiency rating, above their minimum 

standard classes.

3.2.4 Non-Regulatory Initiatives 

DOE reviewed several voluntary programs promoting energy efficient automatic

commercial ice makers in the United States, ENERGY STAR®, CEE, and the Federal Energy 

Management Program (FEMP) procurement program. DOE also reviewed various rebate 

programs offered by utilities. 

3.2.4.1 ENERGY STAR

The ENERGY STAR standards issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) have been effective since January 1, 2008 and concern only cube type, air-cooled 

automatic ice machines. The level of performance corresponds with CEE’s Tier 2 for energy use. 

ENERGY STAR also sets a potable water use limit for all ice machines considered. ENERGY

STAR plans to revisit their standard after the revision of the industry test procedures by AHRI 

and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

to include performance standards for flake and nugget machines.8

 ENERGY STAR criteria are 

listed in Table 3.2.2. 
3-8 

Table 3.2.2 ENERGY STAR Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Key Criteria* 

Equipment Type Harvest Rate, H 

lb/24 hours

Energy Use Limit

kWh/100 lb ice

Potable Water Use 

Limit 

gal/100 lb ice

Air-Cooled 

IMH <450 9.23 – 0.0077H <25

>450 6.20 – 0.0010H <25

RCU (without remote 

compressor) 

<1,000 8.05 – 0.0035H <25

>1,000 4.64 <25

RCU (with remote 

compressor) 

<934 8.05 – 0.0035H <25

>934 4.82 <25

SCU <175 16.7 – 0.0436H <35

>175 9.11 <35

kWh = kilowatt-hours

*ENERGY STAR is currently developing new ice maker specifications. For more information, see

www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=revisions.commercial_ice_machine_spec.

3.2.4.1 Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)

FEMP is a program administered by DOE that oversees the Federal Government’s energy 

management and investment initiatives. FEMP has established purchasing specifications for 

energy efficient equipment, including cube type automatic commercial ice makers, which 

Federal agencies must follow when buying new equipment for their facilities.9 Federal 

purchasers are required by EPACT 2005 to purchase equipment that is either ENERGY STAR

qualified or FEMP designated. The FEMP designated equipment consists of equipment that is in 

the upper 25 percent of energy efficiency in its class. Table 3.2.3 provides the requiremets for 

Federal purchase of air-cooled ice makers and Table 3.2.4 provides the requirements for watercooled ice makers.10

Table 3.2.3 Performance Requirements for Federal Purchases of Air-Cooled Ice Makers

Type Ice Harvest Rate

lb/24 hours

Energy Consumption*

per 100 pounds

Potable Water Use

per 100 pounds

Ice Making Head ≤300 6.9 kWh or less 25 gallons or less

Ice Making Head 301 – 449 5.7 kWh or less 25 gallons or less

Ice Making Head 450 – 699 5.5 kWh or less 25 gallons or less

Ice Making Head 700 – 999 5.2 kWh or less 25 gallons or less

Ice Making Head 1,000 - 1,499 4.7 kWh or less 25 gallons or less

Ice Making Head ≥1,500 4.6 kWh or less 25 gallons or less

Self-Contained ≤75 13.6 kWh or less 35 gallons or less

Self-Contained 76 – 174 9.3 kWh or less 35 gallons or less

Self-Contained ≥175 9.1 kWh or less 35 gallons or less

Remote Condensing ≤500 6.3 kWh or less 25 gallons or less

Remote Condensing 501 – 699 5.6 kWh or less 25 gallons or less

Remote Condensing 700 – 899 4.9 kWh or less 25 gallons or less

Remote Condensing ≥900 4.6 kWh or less 25 gallons or less

Source: DOE Federal Energy Management Program Covered Products website, 

www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/eep_purchasingspecs.html. 

* Measured in accordance with ARI Standard 810-2006, Performance Rating of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers.
3-9 

Table 3.2.4 Performance Requirement for Federal Purchases of Water-Cooled Ice Makers

Type Ice Harvest Rate

lb/24 hours

Energy Use

kWh/100 lb* 

Self-Contained Unit ≤199 6.6 or less

Self-Contained Unit ≥200 6.5 or less

Ice Making Head ≤300 5.3 or less

Ice Making Head 301 – 400 4.8 or less

Ice Making Head 401 – 500 4.3 or less

Ice Making Head 501 – 750 4.1 or less

Ice Making Head 751 – 1,435 3.5 or less

Ice Making Head ≥1,436 3.4 or less

Source: DOE Federal Energy Management Program Covered Products website, 

www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/eep_purchasingspecs.html. * Measured in accordance with ARI Standard 810-2003, Performance Rating of 

Automatic Commercial/Ice Makers.

3.2.4.2 Consortium for Energy Efficiency

Between 2006 and July 2011, CEE used a three-tiered system to set efficiency 

requirements for cube type machines. CEE set Tier 1 to be equivalent to FEMP standards, most 

recently the FEMP standards effective as of January 1, 2010. CEE set Tier 2 to be 10 percent 

below Tier 1, and Tier 3 to be 15 percent below Tier 1. ENERGY STAR standards corresponded

approximately with Tier 2 (for air-cooled machines). CEE standards set limits on both energy 

and water use. The water use is separated into potable water use and cooling water use for watercooled machines.

Beginning on July 1, 2011, CEE revised their system, making the Tier 1 equal to the 

previous Tier 2 levels, and setting the new Tier 2 to 10 percent lower than Tier 1.11 The new 

CEE efficiency requirements for air-cooled ice makers are shown in Table 3.2.5, while the new 

requirements for water-cooled ice makers are shown in Table 3.2.6. 
3-10

Table 3.2.5 CEE Efficiency Requirements for Air-Cooled Ice Makers

Level

Corresponding 

Base 

Specification

Equipment Type

Ice Harvest Rate 

(H) 

lb of ice/day

Energy Use 

Limit 

kWh/100 lb of 

ice

Potable 

Water Use 

Limit 

gal/100 lb of 

ice

Tier 1

ENERGY 

STAR / Former 

CEE Tier 2 

(pre-7/1/2011)

Cube Type Machines

Only: Ice-Making 

Head

<450 9.23 - 0.0077H ≤25

≥450 6.20 - 0.0010H ≤25

Cube Type Machines 

Only: RemoteCondensing without 

remote compressor

<1,000 8.05 - 0.0035H ≤25

≥,1000 4.64 ≤25

Cube Type Machines 

Only: RemoteCondensing with 

remote compressor

<934 8.05 - 0.0035H ≤25

≥934 4.82 ≤25

Cube Type Machines

Only: Self-Contained

<175 16.7 - 0.0436H ≤35

≥175 9.11 ≤35

Tier 2

Approximately

10% More 

Efficient than 

Average 

Performance

Cube and Nugget

Type Ice Machines

<175 14 – 0.0347H ≤30

≥175 and <450 9.6 – 0.0098H ≤20

≥450 and <1,000 5.9 – 0.0016H ≤20

≥1,000 4.5 – 0.0002H ≤20

Flake Type Ice

Machines

<1,000 6.5 – 0.0033H ≤20

≥1,000 3.2 ≤20

Source: CEE website, www.cee1.org/com/com-kit/com-kit-equip.php3.

Table 3.2.6 CEE Efficiency Requirements for Water-Cooled Ice Makers

Level

Corresponding 

Base 

Specification

Equipment Type

Ice Harvest Rate 

(H) 

lb of ice/day

Energy Use 

Limit

kWh/100 lb ice

Potable 

Water Use 

Limit

gal/100 lb of 

ice

Tier 1

Former CEE 

Tier 2 (pre7/1/2011)

Cube Type Machines

Only: Ice-Making 

Head

<500 7.02 – 0.0049H ≤25

≥500 and <1436 5.13 – 0.0010H ≤25

≥1436 3.68 ≤25

Cube Type Machines

Only: Self-Contained

<200 10.6 – 0.0177H ≤35

≥200 7.07 ≤35

Tier 2

Approximately

10% More 

Efficient than 

Average 

Performance

Cube and Nugget

Type Ice Machines

<175 10.6 - 0.0241H ≤30

≥175 and <450 7.1 - 0.0062H ≤20

≥450 and <1000 4.7 - 0.0011H ≤20

≥1,000 3.7 - 0.0002H ≤20

Flake Type Ice

Machines

<1,000 4.8 - 0.0017H ≤20

≥1,000 3.1 ≤20

3.2.4.3 Rebate Programs

Numerous organizations and entities throughout the United States offer rebate programs 

for customers who purchase and install qualified automatic commercial ice makers. Twenty three

utilities, governmental agencies, and other entities operate rebate programs specifically to 

provide incentives to customers who purchase ENERGY STAR compliant ice makers. The 

rebate programs, which can be found on the ENERGY STAR website by using the “Commercial 
3-11

Food Service Equipment Incentive Finder,” offer rebates ranging from $50 to $600 for 

qualifying purchases. 

The EnergySmart Grocer Program is funded by California utility ratepayers under the 

auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Eligible participants include grocery and 

convenience stores, food processors, and refrigerated warehouses operating in the Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company (PG&E) electric service territory. The program offers rebates for use of 

specific technologies on automatic commercial ice makers that are equivalent to CEE Tier 3 or 

ENERGY STAR.

12

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) offers 

rebates on pre-qualified commercial refrigeration equipment, including automatic commercial 

ice makers, ranging from $75 for smaller equipment meeting CEE Tier 2 specifications to $500 

for large equipment meeting CEE Tier 3 specifications.13 

3.2.5 Equipment Classes

Automatic commercial ice makers are divided into equipment classes categorized by 

physical characteristics that affect commercial application, equipment utility, and equipment 

efficiency: (1) the ice-making process; (2) the configuration of the ice-making and refrigeration 

systems; (3) the type of cooling media used; and (4) the capacity of the unit. The following list 

shows the key characteristics of automatic commercial ice makers that DOE is proposing to use 

for this rulemaking: 

1. ice-making process

• continuous 

• batch

2. equipment configuration 

• ice-making head

• remote condensing 

o remote condensing (but not remote compressor)

o remote condensing and remote compressor 

• self-contained

3. condenser cooling media 

• air-cooled

• water-cooled

4. capacity range

• various 

Table 3.2.7 shows the automatic commercial ice-making equipment classes DOE is 

considering within the scope of this rulemaking. 
3-12

Table 3.2.7 Automatic Commercial Ice-Making Equipment Classes

Equipment Type Type of Cooling Harvest Capacity Rate

lb/24 hours Type of Ice Maker

Ice-Making Head 

Water

≥50 and <500 Batch

≥500 and <1,436 Batch

≥1,436 and ≤4,000 Batch

Air ≥50 and <450 Batch

≥450 and ≤4,000 Batch

Remote Condensing 

(but not remote compressor) Air ≥50 and <1,000 Batch

≥1,000 and ≤4,000 Batch

Remote Condensing and Remote 

Compressor Air ≥50 and <934 Batch

≥934 and ≤4,000 Batch

Self-Contained Unit

Water ≥50 and <200 Batch

≥200 and ≤4,000 Batch

Air ≥50 and <175 Batch

≥175 and ≤4,000 Batch

Ice-Making Head

Water ≥50 and <1000 Continuous

≥1,000 and <4,000 Continuous

Air ≥50 and <1000 Continuous

≥1,000 and <4,000 Continuous

Remote Condensing 

(but not remote compressor) Air ≥50 and <1000 Continuous

≥1,000 and <4,000 Continuous

Remote Condensing and Remote 

Compressor Air ≥50 and <1000 Continuous

≥1,000 and <4,000 Continuous

Self-Contained Unit 

Water ≥50 and <175 Continuous

≥175 and <4,000 Continuous

Air ≥50 and <175 Continuous

≥175 and <4,000 Continuous

3.2.6 Shipments and Available Equipment

This section presents the shipments data obtained from AHRI, North American 

Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM), and the U.S. Census Bureau. 

3.2.6.1 Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Data

As part of its comments on the Framework document, AHRI submitted 2010 shipment 

data by equipment class for its member companies, and historical information on total shipments. 

DOE used this shipments data as part of the basis for this analysis. DOE understands that this

data does not include the entire industry. As noted in section 3.2.2, AHRI membership includes 

some but not all manufacturers. However, AHRI’s members represent over 90 percent of the 

market, so the AHRI data covers a significant portion of the automatic commercial ice makers

sold. 

Table 3.2.8 shows 2010 annual shipments for each category of automatic commercial ice 

maker by equipment class. Note that the AHRI data have been aggregated to match the primary 

equipment groupings, meaning that for batch and continuous ice maker types the remote 

compressing units have been aggregated into one group, distinguished only by harvest rates. 

AHRI’s data include information to distinguish between remote condenser units with remote 

compressors and remote condenser units that do not have remote compressors.
3-13

Table 3.2.8 AHRI 2010 Shipments of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers, by 

Equipment Class

Type of Ice Maker Equipment 

Type

Type of 

Cooling

Harvest Capacity Rate

lb/24 hours 2010 Shipments

Batch IMH Water ≥50 and <500 7,364

Batch IMH Water ≥500 and <1,436 4,734

Batch IMH Water ≥1,436 and ≤4,000 748

Batch IMH Air ≥50 and <450 43,913

Batch IMH Air ≥450 and ≤4,000 26,173

Batch RCU Air ≥50 and <1,000 8,804

Batch RCU Air ≥1,000 and ≤4,000 9,856

Batch SCU Water ≥50 and <200 1,101

Batch SCU Water ≥200 and ≤4,000 351

Batch SCU Air ≥50 and <175 22,468

Batch SCU Air ≥175 and ≤4,000 10,640

Continuous IMH Water ≥50 and <1000 1,265

Continuous IMH Water ≥1,000 and <4,000 123

Continuous IMH Air ≥50 and <1000 7,213

Continuous IMH Air ≥1,000 and <4,000 260

Continuous RCU Air ≥50 and <1000 1,972

Continuous RCU Air ≥1,000 and <4,000 773

Continuous SCU Water ≥50 and <175 -

Continuous SCU Water ≥175 and <4,000 241

Continuous SCU Air ≥50 and <175 7,478

Continuous SCU Air ≥175 and <4,000 6,713

3.2.6.2 North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers Data

NAFEM publishes a biennial study of the foodservice equipment and supplies market. 

The latest available report is titled 2010 Size and Shape of the Industry Study.

14 It contains 

survey data from NAFEM members (not all members provided data for the report), including 

shipments numbers and the value of sales in dollars. Based on the numbers reported by the 

respondents to the survey, NAFEM developed a total market estimate of shipments (units 

shipped and dollar sales) for the year 2009. NAFEM published similar study reports for 

shipments in 200815 and 2006.16 

The “refrigeration and ice machine study” is part of the NAFEM reports and includes 

shipments data for cube, flake, and nugget ice makers as well as ice dispensers—both manual fill 

and integrated systems. Table 3.2.9 shows the DOE equipment classes to which the NAFEM 

equipment corresponds. Due to the aggregation of the NAFEM data, it provided additional data 

for putting total shipments into context, but not for identifying the relative shares of shipments 

by equipment class. Shipment estimates have been withheld from publication because the 

NAFEM reports are not publicly available. 
3-14

Table 3.2.9 NAFEM Ice Maker Category Cross Reference with DOE Equipment Classes

NAFEM Category DOE Equipment Class

Cube Ice Makers Batch

Flake Ice Makers Continuous

Nugget Ice Makers Continuous

Ice Dispenser, Integrated Systems Self-Contained Units

Ice Dispenser, Manual Fill –

3.2.6.3 Census Bureau Data

The U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Industrial Report (CIR) series publishes statistics on 

the quantity and value of shipments based on a survey of manufacturers. The CIR has been 

published since 1904, and DOE collected CIR data going back to the 1940s for purposes of 

evaluating prices and shipments. 

Table 3.2.10 shows shipment data for ice-making machines. 

Table 3.2.10 Census Bureau Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Shipments

Product Description Year Quantity Value Companies

Self-contained ice-cube makers, automatic, under 200 

lb

2010 42,293 43,039 4

2009 61,699 55,522

Self-contained ice-cube makers, automatic, 200 lb and 

over

2010 (not reported) 102,696 5

2009 (not reported) 84,524

Self-contained flake or chip machines, 300 lb and 

under

2010 (not reported) (not reported) 3

2009 546 1,369

Self-contained flake or chip machines, over 300 lb 2010 21,368 50,728 6

2009 17,958 42,016

Ice-making machines, not self-contained 2010 107,723 258,408 7

2009 94,876 217,791

Ice-making machines, combination ice makers and 

ice/drink dispensers

2010 74,635 181,612 5

2009 62,367 150,330

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Industrial Reports, 2010. 

www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma333m/index.html

Automatic commercial ice makers are treated in U.S. Census Bureau data series as part of 

NAICS 333415. In general, automatic commercial ice makers are such a small piece of NAICS 

333415 that the U.S. Census Bureau does not report them separately in any table reviewed by the 

DOE, except for the CIR tables.

In summary, although the U.S. Census Bureau data contain some limited shipments data 

that would be useful for conducting technical analyses, not enough detail is available to provide 

specific assessments for shipments within each of the primary categories covered in this 

rulemaking. 

3.2.7 Equipment Lifetimes

DOE reviewed available literature and consulted with experts on automatic commercial 

ice makers to establish typical equipment lifetimes. The literature and individuals consulted 

estimated a fairly narrow and consistent range of typical equipment lifetimes, shown in Table 
3-15

3.2.11. Most references cited in the table appear to have derived the underlying data for their 

estimates of equipment lifetime from the 1996 Arthur D. Little report.17 

Individuals with experience in the manufacture or distribution of automatic commercial 

ice makers suggested a typical case life of 7 to 10 years, with some equipment being retired after 

as short a period as 5 years in cases of building remodels and as long as 20 years in cases where 

the equipment owners did not care about the appearance of the equipment. 

Some literature suggested lifetimes of up to 20 years or more for tube type automatic 

commercial ice makers. 

Table 3.2.11 Estimates for Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Lifetimes

Life Reference

7 to 10 years Arthur D. Little, 199617

8.5 years California Energy Commission, 200418

8.5 years Fernstrom, G., 200419

8.5 years Koeller J., and H. Hoffman, 20082

7 to 10 years Navigant Consulting, Inc. 200920

3.3 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 

This section provides a technology assessment for automatic commercial ice makers. 

Contained in this technology assessment are details about product operations and components 

(section 3.3.1), an examination of possible technological improvements for each product 

(section 3.3.2), and a characterization of the product efficiency levels currently available on the 

market (section 3.3.3).

3.3.1 Baseline Equipment Components and Operation 

This section briefly describes the components and operation of automatic commercial ice 

makers (referred to within this section as “ice makers”). These descriptions provide a basis for 

understanding the technologies used to improve product efficiency. 

3.3.1.1 Basic Equipment Description and Components

A typical ice maker consists of a refrigeration system and a water supply system 

contained within an insulated case. The ice makers may or may not have an integrated storage 

bin. Ice makers that have no integral storage bin generally deliver ice by gravity (i.e., dropping 

the ice) into a bin or other equipment, such as a beverage/ice dispenser, on which the ice maker 

is mounted when in use. The refrigeration system may be entirely contained in a single unit, or 

the condenser and possibly the compressor may be located remotely. 

Ice makers are classified into three categories, as discussed in section 3.2.5: ice-making 

heads (IMHs), remote condensing units (RCUs), and self-contained units (SCUs). IMHs have the 

highest sales levels and are available in the widest range of capacities. They are generally 

mounted on top of a separate storage bin or other equipment that uses the ice. The indoor 

sections of RCUs are similar to IMHs, except that they are mated with remote condensers 

intended to be located outdoors, rejecting heat directly to the outside air without adding to the 

interior air-conditioning load. SCUs have their own integral ice storage bins. They generally 
3-16

have smaller harvest capacities than IMHs and RCUs, and most of these units are designed for 

under-counter placement.

There are two distinct ice-making processes that are used by commercial ice makers:

• The batch process involves alternate freezing and harvesting periods, producing 

batches of solid ice by allowing water to flow over an evaporator and freeze into 

cubes, tubes, or another shape depending on the evaporator geometry. Once the ice is 

fully formed, the refrigeration system switches into harvest mode, in which 

compressor heat is transferred to the evaporator to release the ice, which is 

subsequently moved to storage. 

• The continuous process makes flake and nugget-shaped ice by continuously scraping 

ice as it freezes on a cylindrical evaporator surface. Most commercial flake and 

nugget ice makers use a stationary evaporator that contains a rotating auger that 

scrapes the ice off its inner surface as the water freezes, extruding it upward. The 

auger forces the ice through exit orifices past a cutter, whose specific geometry 

dictates the ice format: in nugget ice makers, the flakes are converted into nuggets 

using an extrusion head with smaller openings that compresses the flakes to form 

nuggets. After passing through the entire evaporator, the flakes or nuggets typically 

drop down into the ice bin. 

All commercially available ice makers use vapor compression refrigeration systems to 

provide the refrigeration needed for ice production. Table 3.3.1 provides descriptions for the key 

refrigeration components. Aside from the evaporator, ice makers use the same refrigeration 

components that are used in other medium-temperature commercial refrigeration applications. 

Ice makers use either air-cooled or water-cooled condensers. Air-cooled condensers are used in 

roughly 90 percent of units shipped.21 Water-cooled condensers can increase energy efficiency 

because the lower inlet water temperature and higher heat transfer possible with water cooling 

allow condensing temperature to be reduced. However, in traditional installations this results in 

much higher water consumption because condenser water is most often drained after it is used to 

cool the condenser. Water-cooled ice makers can, however, be used with closed-water-loop 

systems in which the condenser heat is remotely rejected in a cooling tower or other equipment 

used to cool the water. Sections 3.3.1.2 (Batch Process) and 3.3.1.3(Continuous Process) 

describe the batch and continuous ice-making processes in more detail.
3-17

Table 3.3.1 Brief Description of Primary Refrigeration System Components

Component Description of Typical Unit

Compressor 

Compressor types used:

• Reciprocating compressors for most ice makers

• Scroll compressor for higher-capacity ice makers (~1,500 lb/24 hours and 

higher)

Refrigerants used:

• R-134a ( < 100 lb/24 hours) 

• R-404A ( > 100 lb/24 hours) 

Condenser 

Air-Cooled • Copper tube-aluminum fin condensers, generally with enhanced fins (wavy or 

slit fin), maximum fin density near 15 fins per inch.

WaterCooled

• Concentric tube heat exchanger with steel outer and copper or cupronickel inner 

tube, possibly enhanced surface area using spiral grooving. Water flow 

controlled by the supply valve to maintain a constant preset condensing

temperature.

Expansion Device • Most ice makers use conventional thermostatic expansion valves. Electronic 

valves rarely used. Smaller-capacity ice makers may use capillary tubes.

Evaporator • Copper tubing attached to copper or stainless steel ice-making surfaces (see 

specific descriptions of batch and continuous evaporators below).

Liquid Line/Suction Line 

Heat Exchanger

• Liquid and suction lines brazed together.

3.3.1.2 Batch Process

This section describes the batch ice-making process, including the refrigeration cycle, 

evaporator designs, and water supply systems currently used for batch ice-making in the ice 

maker industry. Cube- and tube-shaped ice types are made in batch process ice machines.

Figure 3.3.1 shows key components of a generic refrigeration cycle used for batch icemaking. The system adds to the basic vapor compression cycle a hot-gas bypass line that enables 

the evaporator to undergo a harvest or defrost cycle using hot gas directly from the compressor 

discharge line. The defrost cycle is used to melt the ice layers that hold the ice on the evaporator 

surface, causing the ice to slide off the evaporator. The hot gas solenoid valve opens during 

harvest to let the discharge gas bypass the condenser and thermostatic expansion valve to pass 

directly into the evaporator. 
3-18

Source: Manitowoc

Figure 3.3.1 Typical Vapor Compression Refrigeration Cycle for Batch Type Ice Makers

There are five basic evaporator designs used by manufacturers in the ice maker industry 

today for ice makers with harvest capacities in the commercial range (up to 4,000 lb/24 hours). 

These designs are described in Table 3.3.2. The cube type evaporator consists of copper or 

stainless steel ice-making surfaces brazed to copper serpentine tubing, enabling the exchange of 

heat between the water and the refrigerant. The tube and cracked ice evaporators are used for ice 

makers with harvest capacities of 2,000 lb/24 hours and higher. Figure 3.3.2 shows cracked ice 

during harvest, illustrating the cracks that form due to thermal stresses associated with harvest 

heat addition just prior to ice release. 
3-19

Table 3.3.2 Batch Evaporator Designs 

Evaporator 

Design

Manufacturers 

Using Design Ice Shape Description

Vertical Grid

Manitowoc, 

Scotsman 

Industries

Rectangular 

Cube Nickel-plated copper grid oriented vertically with 

copper serpentine tubing brazed onto rear plate; water 

flows down the face of the grid and freezes in cubeshaped cavities to form ice cubes.

Hoshizaki 

Style Hoshizaki

Crescent Cube

Vertically oriented pair of stainless steel surfaces 

shaped to ensure formation of individual crescent 

cubes and sandwiching the copper serpentine 

evaporator tube; water flows down both sides. 

Horizontal 

Grid Kold-Draft

Rectangular 

Cube Nickel-plated copper grid oriented horizontally with 

the ice-making surface facing downward with copper 

serpentine tubing brazed on the top; water is sprayed 

from below onto the ice-making surface by multiple 

nozzles.

Tube Vogt, Others

Cylindrical 

Tube Vertical cylindrical stainless steel drum housing an 

array of vertical stainless steel tubes; water flows 

down and freezes on the inside surface of the tubes, 

forming long ice tubes that are cut into smaller pieces 

as they fall through and out the tubes during harvest; 

refrigerant flows inside the drum outside the tubes.

Cracked Vogt, Arctic 

Temp, Others Cracked Pieces

One or more vertically oriented concentric-cylindrical 

stainless steel tube evaporators with refrigerant 

flowing between the cylinders; water flows down and 

ice forms on the inner and outer surfaces. The thermal 

stress of harvest starts to crack the cylindrical ice, and 

it is ground into smaller pieces mechanically.

Image sources:

Vertical Grid – Manitowoc: www.manitowocice.com

Hoshizaki Style: www.ccfse.com/Hoshizaki-Crescent-Ice-Cuber-p/km-650mah.htm

Horizontal Grid – Kold-Draft: www.kold-draft.com/ice-making-technology/ice-sizes.php

Tube Ice: www.prithvinigen.com/tube_ice.jpg
3-20

Source: Vogt Ice (www.vogtice.com/downloads/General%20Info-VT.pdf) 

Figure 3.3.2 Cracked Ice Forming on “Cracked Ice” Evaporators

Figure 3.3.3 shows the typical water system for cube type ice makers using vertically

oriented evaporators. 
3-21

Figure 3.3.3 Water System Diagram for Batch Type Ice Makers

Batches of ice are produced through a series of steps, as described below: 

1. Sump fills with water. Some ice maker designs fill the sump completely before 

beginning the ice-making process, while others allow the filling process to continue 

through the ice-making process. The continuous fill technique is common in selfcontained units. 

2. Water is circulated over the evaporator, and ice gradually forms. Water that does not 

freeze on the evaporator falls to the sump to be recirculated by the pump. Solids and 

gases dissolved in the water are carried away by the remaining liquid. This process 

reduces inclusion of impurities in the ice, thus allowing production of clearer ice. 

3. When the batch is complete, ice is harvested using hot refrigerant vapor that has been 

redirected from the compressor discharge to warm the evaporator to free the ice from 

the surface. The harvested ice falls into a storage bin, which may or may not be part 

of the ice maker. The ice maker can sense when the ice has reached the proper batch 

weight by (1) measuring sump water level; (2) waiting a certain amount of time after 

the compressor suction pressure drops to a preset level; or (3) measuring thickness of 

ice on the plate.

4. The remaining sump liquid, which contains high concentrations of dissolved solids, is 

drained. Depending on ice maker design details, the liquid may or may not be 

completely drained, and there may or may not be fresh potable water flowing during 

Water 

Pump 

Sump

Water Distributor

Water Circuit

Water 

Supply

Purge Drain 
3-22

this time to help purge the contaminants. Typical potable water consumption ranges 

from 18–40 gallons for every 100 lb of ice produced, compared to 12 gallons per 

100 lb contained in the ice produced. 

5. After completion of draining, the sump is refilled. 

Manufacturers of cube ice machines have been able to minimize meltage during harvest 

using mechanical or pressurized-air assist. Such methods rely on the formation of an ice bridge 

between cubes to transfer the force between cubes and/or ensure that the pressurized air spreads 

out over the evaporator surface. Hoshizaki ice makers utilize the incoming potable water stream 

to assist in the harvest process by directing the incoming water behind the two evaporator plates. 

The water can provide a substantial amount of the heat required for harvest. This approach also 

pre-chills the incoming water for the next batch of ice. Harvest times range from less than 

1 minute up to 2 minutes.

Tube and cracked ice machines use a cutter at the base of the evaporator to chop the ice 

into small sections as it falls. 

3.3.1.3 Continuous Process

This section describes the “continuous” ice-making process, including the refrigeration 

cycle, the evaporator designs, and the water supply systems currently used for continuous icemaking in the ice maker industry. As previously stated, the continuous process is used to make 

flake and nugget ice.

Figure 3.3.4 shows the typical refrigeration cycle used for continuous ice-making. The 

cycle involves the basic vapor compression cycle. In contrast to the batch process, there is no 

hot-gas bypass line, because there is no need for a harvest cycle.
3-23

Source: Manitowoc

Figure 3.3.4 Typical Vapor Compression Refrigeration Cycle for Continuous Ice Makers

The continuous ice maker evaporator is typically a stainless steel cylinder with an auger 

that moves ice upward toward an extruding head, as shown in Figure 3.3.5. There are currently 

two variations of this design used across the industry. The most common design involves 

wrapping a copper coil around the cylinder and brazing the assembly to allow heat to be 

exchanged between the water and the refrigerant. A variation of this design uses concentric 

stainless steel cylinders to form a spiral-shaped space for refrigerant flow, as shown in Figure 

3.3.5(B). The auger drives the water and ice upward as the water freezes on the cold inner 

surface of the evaporator cylinder. The ice is pushed through an extrusion head. The extrusion 

head for a nugget ice maker has smaller holes than that of a flake ice maker, causing the flakes to 

be compressed into nuggets as they leave the evaporator. Some designs use a rotating cutter to 

help shape the ice. At this point the ice is directed to the storage bin, often via gravity drop 

through a vertical transfer tube. Flake- and nugget-type ice makers do not have a purging process 

to remove impurities, and the resulting ice retains the impurities, similar to ice production in 

residential refrigerators. However, some designs use an occasional flush to remove impurities 

that may remain in the evaporator. 

Compressor

Air or Water Condenser

Evaporator

Thermostatic 

Expansion Valve

Liquid-line 

Filter Drier

Suction-Liquid 

Heat Exchanger
3-24

(A) Copper-tube continuous evaporator and auger motor (Ice-O-Matic)

(B) Stainless-steel continuous evaporator (Follett)

Sources: 

www.kirbysupply.com/Equipment/Ice_Machines/IOM_Flaker_Self_Contained_fp.htm

www.follettice.com/images/image_bank/AAI_Evaporator.jpg

Figure 3.3.5 Cross-Section of Continuous Evaporator and Auger 

An alternative flaker system commercialized by Howe Corporation for capacities of 

1,000 to 40,000 lb/24 hours uses an ice blade attached to a rotating shaft to score and wedge the 

ice off the inside surface of the evaporator drum. In this design, the ice is sub-cooled so that it is 

22 °F when harvested, and it gravity-drops to a storage bin. 

3.3.2 Technology Options 

As discussed in preliminary TSD chapter 2, DOE’s primary focus in developing its 

analysis for this rulemaking is the reduction of energy use. Reduction of potable water use and 

condenser water use are considered in the context of their relationship to energy use. Hence, this 

section does not address technology options associated with water use reduction. This section 

instead discusses technology options for energy use reduction in ice makers. 

Table 3.3.3 lists the technology options for improving the efficiency of automatic 

commercial ice makers. The technology options are categorized by their associated component 

or system. Each technology option category and the options available for improving the 

component or system category are discussed below.
3-25

Table 3.3.3 Technology Options for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Technology Options Batch

Ice Makers

Continuous 

Ice Makers Notes

Compressor

Improved compressor 

efficiency √ √ 

Part-load operation √ √

Condenser

Increased surface area √ √

Enhanced fin surfaces √ √ Air-cooled only

Increased air flow √ √ Air-cooled only

Increased water flow √ √ Water-cooled only

Brazed plate condenser √ √ Water-cooled only

Fans and Fan 

Motor

Higher efficiency condenser 

fans and fan motors √ √ Air-cooled only

Other Motors 

Improved auger motor 

efficiency √ 

Improved pump motor 

efficiency √ 

Evaporator

Design options which reduce 

energy loss due to evaporator 

thermal cycling

√ 

Design options which reduce 

harvest meltage or reduce 

harvest time

√ 

Insulation Improved or thicker insulation √ √

Refrigeration 

Line Larger diameter suction line √ √ Primarily remote compressor equipment

Potable Water Reduced potable water flow √

Drain water thermal exchange √

3.3.2.1 Compressor

The compressor is the primary energy consuming component in an ice maker. Most ice 

makers use hermetic compressors in which the entire motor-compressor assembly is hermetically 

sealed in the welded steel shell. Hermetic reciprocating compressors are the most commonly 

used compressors in ice makers, although hermetic scroll compressors and semi-hermetic 

reciprocating compressors are also used for the highest capacity equipment. Semi-hermetic 

compressors can be opened for repair of internal components—they are typically very heavy, 

because the flanges or sealed plates required for access must be thick and stiff to prevent 

refrigerant leaks during operation. 

Almost all compressors are directly driven by two-pole, squirrel-cage induction motors 

running at approximately 3,000 rpm on 60 Hz power. Four types of single-phase induction 

motors have been used in ice maker compressors: capacitor start/capacitor run (CSCR), 

resistance start/induction run (RSIR), capacitor start/induction run (CSIR), and resistance 

start/capacitor run (RSCR). Of the four motor types, the RSIR motor is the least efficient. Singlephase compressors in ice makers run on either 115 or 230 V power. Larger ice makers can also 

use three-phase motors.
3-26

Ice maker compressor capacities range from approximately 1,500 British thermal units 

(Btu) per hour to 40,000 Btu/hr. Three organizations have established conditions for rating the 

performance of compressors: AHRI, ASHRAE, and Comité Européen des Constructeurs de 

Matériel Frigorifique (CECOMAF).c Table 3.3.4 shows the rating conditions of these 

organizations. The performance ratings are based on the premise that refrigerant tubing 

connecting system components are adiabatic (i.e., that they undergo no thermal exchange with 

the environment). Note that the actual operating conditions for compressors in ice makers under 

DOE energy test conditions can be different than these rating conditions. In fact, batch ice maker 

compressors operate over a range of conditions during each ice-making cycle.

Table 3.3.4 Compressor Rating Conditions (oF (oC))

Rating Condition ARI 540 MBP 

Type 1

ARI 540 MBP

Type 2

ASHRAE MBP CECOMAF M

Evaporating 

Temperature* 

20 (-6.7) 20 (-6.7) 20 (-6.7) 14 (-10)

Condensing 

Temperature** 

120 (48.9) 120 (48.9) 130 (54.4) 131 (55)

Suction Temperature 65 (18.3) 40 (4.4) 95 (35) 90 (32)

Condenser Outlet 

Temperature / Liquid 

Temp† 

115 (46.1)

Subcooling† 32 (0) 32 (0) 32 (0)

MBP = medium back pressure *

Refrigerant dew point temperature corresponding to suction pressure. **Refrigerant dew point temperature corresponding to discharge pressure. †

Condition just prior to refrigerant expansion.

Compressor performance data, collected as part of the engineering analysis, are presented 

in preliminary TSD chapter 5. Compressor efficiency is generally expressed as an energy 

efficiency ratio (EER)—a ratio of refrigeration capacity to input power with units of Btu/watthour. The EER of a compressor depends on the compressor operating conditions. Also, the peak 

EERs of compressors vary significantly over the range of compressor capacities used in ice 

makers, with higher EERs achieved by higher capacity compressors. 

Improved Compressor Efficiency

Conversion to high-efficiency compressors is fairly straightforward for manufacturers to 

implement as long as compressors of a suitable capacity are available and they do not present 

additional challenges such as larger physical size or greater noise levels. The potential for 

efficiency improvement through use of higher efficiency compressors can be significant, but it 

depends on the specific circumstances for a given, existing ice maker design. Chapter 5 discusses 

in greater depth the potential for improving efficiency through use of higher EER compressors. 

Part-Load Operation 

Part-load operation may be achieved using variable-speed, variable-capacity, or dualcapacity compressors, or by using two compressors. This option would reduce the energy used 

 

c CECOMAF is a European appliance manufacturer trade association formed in 1958. It merged with EUROVENT 

in 1996 to become EUROVENT/CECOMAF. This organization is now called EUROVENT.
3-27

when the ice maker is producing ice at less than its full harvest capacity. During part-load 

operation, the temperature differentials between the evaporating refrigerant and the freezing 

water and also between the condensing refrigerant and the cooling medium can be reduced, thus 

improving the compressor’s operating EER. Information demonstrating such approaches in ice 

makers has not been made public, but variable-speed compressors are being used in other 

refrigeration applications, such as residential refrigerators. 

3.3.2.2 Condenser

Increased Surface Area

Increasing the heat transfer surface area of air-cooled condensers can be achieved by 

(a) increasing the width of the rows of tubes; (b) adding more tube rows along the direction of air 

flow; or (c) adding more tube rows across the direction of air flow. These measures can be 

limited by the geometry of the ice maker. Increasing tube width can also result in an increased 

refrigerant pressure drop across the condenser, so there is a tradeoff between improving heat 

transfer to reduce condensing temperature and increasing condenser inlet pressure due to the 

higher pressure drop. Similarly, adding tube rows can increase the air pressure drop through the 

condenser, so there is a tradeoff between improving heat transfer and increasing fan work. 

The surface area of water-cooled ice makers can also be increased through the use of 

larger coaxial condenser designs.

Increasing condenser size also has implications associated with limits on equipment size. 

Increasing the size of an ice maker to allow for a condenser size increase may not be acceptable 

because ice makers have standard sizes. Such limitations may be less important for remote 

condensers, however. There is often greater potential for increase in the size of condensers of 

water-cooled ice makers, since water-cooled and air-cooled designs are often based on the same 

platform, and the air-cooled condensers, condenser fan/motor assemblies, and space for air flow 

generally take up much more space than water-cooled condensers. 

One issue to consider when implementing condenser size increase is the added refrigerant 

charge associated with such a design change. The added refrigerant can add cost, but also can 

increase the challenges associated with refrigerant management throughout both the freeze and 

harvest cycles of batch ice makers. While few IMH-style batch ice makers have refrigerant 

receivers, an increase of condenser size can potentially lead to required use of receivers to ensure 

reliable operation and avoid damage such as would occur with flooding of the compressor. 

Enhanced Fin Surfaces (Air-Cooled Models) 

Enhanced fin surfaces can improve the performance of air-cooled condensers by reducing 

air-side thermal resistance. Several such surfaces to improve performance have become available 

for use in fluid/air heat exchangers over the years. Among the most common types of fin surface 

enhancements are wavy fins and slit fins. Most air-cooled ice makers already take advantage of 

such enhanced fin surfaces. 
3-28

Increased Air Flow (Air-Cooled Models) 

Increasing the air flow rate through the condenser will increase the heat removal rate and 

reduce condensing temperature. However, increasing air flow generally requires increased fan 

input power, so there are limits to the benefits of this approach. Fan size increase, if necessary to 

increase air flow rate, can also be limited by the geometry of the ice maker, making it difficult to 

increase air flow in some models.

Increased Condenser Water Flow (Water-Cooled Models) 

Increasing the condenser water flow rate for water-cooled ice makers will improve heat 

transfer. However, this measure can significantly increase costs associated with water 

consumption in installations where condenser water is drained to a building’s waste water 

system. Cube ice makers covered by the current DOE standards limit condenser water use. As 

discussed in preliminary TSD chapter 2, DOE has provisionally determined that design options 

that increase condenser water usage while improving energy efficiency are not prohibited, but 

that such changes must consider the cost effectiveness of increased condenser water flow. 

Brazed Plate Condenser (Water-Cooled Models) 

Brazed plate water-cooled condensers can have much larger heat transfer areas for a 

given volume than coil-in-coil condensers, resulting in higher heat transfer efficiency. 

3.3.2.3 Higher Efficiency Condenser Fans and Fan Motors 

Fans are used to draw or blow air through air-cooled condensers. Condenser fans used in 

ice makers almost exclusively are axial design. 

One source of inefficiency for axial fans lies in their tendency to throw air outward. The 

Pax GroupTM has developed a fan (PAX fan) that employs streamlined blades with patented 

geometrical shapes that reportedly provide better air flow direction and improved efficiency. 

Though a prototype has not yet been developed for ice makers, Pax is working to optimize the 

fans for other commercial refrigeration equipment, including supermarket display cases and 

vending machines. Tests performed with the PAX fan have demonstrated a reduction in fanmotor power of 15 to 20 percent.22 At this point, because the PAX fan is proprietary, the 

widespread use of the design is highly uncertain. 

Most condenser fan motors used in products today have shaded pole induction designs 

with efficiencies between 20 and 30 percent, or permanent split capacitor (PSC) designs, which 

reach efficiencies of 40 to 65 percent. Brushless DC motors can have efficiencies up to 80 

percent, thus representing an option for further efficiency improvement. 

3.3.2.4 Improved Auger Motor Efficiency

Flake and nugget machines use an auger motor to drive the auger. CSIR, CSCR, and PSC 

motors are generally used in single-phase designs. Higher efficiency permanent magnet motors 

could also be used for auger motors. 
3-29

3.3.2.5 Improved Pump Motor Efficiency

Cube machines use a pump motor to pump water from the sump to the top of the 

evaporator. Most ice maker pumps use shaded-pole motors. However, PSC or brushless-DC 

motors could also be used with ice maker pumps. 

3.3.2.6 Evaporator 

Manufacturers generally fabricate a limited number of evaporator sizes, which are used 

across the product lines matched to the extent possible with the appropriately sized compressors. 

This manufacturing strategy contributes to variations of energy efficiency across the product line 

because the evaporator/compressor combination cannot be optimized for each ice maker, 

resulting in some ice makers with undersized evaporators having oversized compressors to 

achieve the target production rate. Such products may have correspondingly higher energy 

consumption.23 This generally holds true for both batch and continuous ice makers. 

Batch ice maker evaporator design requires finding a careful balance between the ice 

growth behavior, water flow rate over the evaporator, localized water distribution, materials 

selection, and harvest performance (e.g., successful ice detachment with little meltage). 

Evaporator design is a complex process not amenable to analysis, and developing a successful 

evaporator design requires many hours of laboratory testing. Manufacturers are very reluctant to 

change the evaporator design once a successful design has been developed. 

Increased Evaporator Size 

A larger evaporator size would allow for a higher evaporating temperature, thus allowing 

the compressor to operate more efficiently. It is important to note that increasing evaporator size 

has implications associated with limits on equipment size. Increasing the size of an ice maker to 

allow for an evaporator size increase may not be acceptable because ice makers have standard 

sizes. 

Design Options that Reduce Energy Loss due to Evaporator Thermal Cycling 

Energy loss associated with thermal cycling depends on the thermal mass of the portions 

of the evaporator that must cool down during the freeze cycle and warm up during harvest, and 

with the temperature extremes of the thermal cycling. These losses can be reduced by reducing 

thermal mass and moderating the temperature extremes. Hence, both thermal mass and thermal 

resistance between the evaporator and the ice must be considered in alternative designs to reduce 

this loss. Numerous patents suggest evaporator designs with reduced thermal mass or otherwise 

improved performance. However, performance data is publicly available for few of these 

designs, perhaps just for one: the evaporator design used in most Hoshizaki cube ice machines. 

DOE’s research of the proprietary status of this technology did not conclusively determine 

whether it can be used by other manufacturers. However, during the preliminary analysis, DOE 

also did not confirm conclusively that the design is clearly superior on the basis of energy 

efficiency.

DOE requests information regarding proprietary status of low-thermal-mass evaporator 

designs (see the preliminary TSD executive summary). 
3-30

Design Options that Reduce Harvest Meltage or Reduce Harvest Time

Reduction of harvest meltage will improve efficiency by preserving more ice for harvest 

and by reducing harvest time. The reduction of harvest time improves efficiency by increasing 

harvest capacity because it reduces total cycle time associated with a given batch weight. Harvest 

meltage has been reduced in cube ice makers by ensuring smooth evaporator surfaces, allowing 

buildup of ice bridges connecting the cubes, and employing harvest assist. Ensuring that surfaces 

in contact with the ice are smooth prevents holdup of the cubes as they slide out of the 

evaporator cube cells. Ice bridges connecting cubes allow the entire ice sheet to be released at 

once, which can help ensure harvest of individual cubes that might be held up as they release 

from the evaporator. Harvest assist involves active removal of the ice sheet from the evaporator. 

This is done in current ice maker designs using a mechanical method employing a rod that 

pushes on the ice sheet from the evaporator side24 (this method is used by Scotsman and Ice-OMatic ice makers) and by blowing air behind the ice sheet from the rear of the evaporator to 

create pressure to remove the ice25 (this method is used by Manitowoc ice makers). The speed of 

harvest and the meltage rate are also affected by details of compressor design, control of 

evaporator pressure and refrigerant flow during harvest, whether the ice maker has a remote 

condenser and/or compressor, and the use of incoming potable water to help in warming the ice. 

Additional design adjustments may be possible to further improve harvest to reduce harvest 

meltage or reduce harvest time, but information is not publicly available detailing such additional 

options and/or their effectiveness. 

3.3.2.7 Improved or Thicker Insulation

Insulation can be used around the evaporator compartment and the sump to minimize the 

thermal load through the walls of these parts of the ice maker. Ice maker manufacturers vary in 

their use of insulation. Some manufacturers simply place a piece of batt insulation between the 

ice-making and compressor compartments, while other manufacturers use polystyrene pieces or 

blown-in polyurethane foam in the walls and/or base of the unit. Increased thickness and 

improved resistivity are both options to reduce the thermal load on the refrigeration system, 

reducing energy consumption. 

3.3.2.8 Larger Diameter Suction Line (Remote Compressor Models)

Remote condenser units must be tested with at least 25 feet of interconnecting refrigerant 

piping between the condenser and the ice-making head (ARI Standard 810-2003, section 4.1.3). 

For ice makers with both remote condensers and remote compressors, this significantly increases 

the length of the suction line, resulting in additional pressure drop between the evaporator and 

the compressor suction inlet. Increasing the size of the suction line would reduce this pressure 

drop. However, consideration must be given to oil return, which can depend on maintaining 

relatively high suction velocities. If the suction line refrigerant velocity is too low, oil may not 

return reliably to the compressor, thus increasing the risk of oil loss and compressor failure. 

3.3.2.9 Reduced Potable Water Flow

Potable water use and energy use of ice makers are related. Some or all of the purge 

water drained from batch ice makers leaves the equipment near 32 °F. This represents lost 
3-31

refrigeration that could potentially have been used to produce more ice. However, water is 

purged from batch ice makers to remove dissolved solids that enter with the potable water 

supply. Selecting excessively low potable water levels can lead to increased maintenance cost 

associated with an increased need for descaling operations, and, after the ice maker has operated 

for a number of cycles, the scale build-up can reduce ice production and increase energy use.

3.3.2.10 Drain Water Thermal Exchange 

Batch ice makers can benefit from drain water thermal exchange that cools potable water 

supply entering the sump, thereby reducing the energy required to freeze the water. In most batch 

ice makers, the sump pump cycles water over the evaporator throughout the freeze cycle, and 

only drains and refills during the harvest. At the end of the freeze cycle, the water in the sump is 

just above freezing temperature, so this water could be drained to a secondary sump or reservoir. 

The water inlet tube would pass through this secondary sump to facilitate thermal exchange 

between the water entering the sump at supply water temperature and the recently drained water 

near freezing temperature. Efficiency gains are limited by the fact that purge water amounts have 

been reduced to about one-third of the supply water quantity for many ice makers. 

3.3.3 Energy Use Data

DOE gathered data on the energy use of automatic commercial ice makers currently 

available in the marketplace. DOE created a database of the current models by surveying 

manufacturers’ websites. The data provide an overview of the energy use of each equipment 

class covered by this rulemaking according to the current DOE test procedure, which references 

ARI Standard 810-2003. Figure 3.3.6 through Figure 3.3.16 show energy consumption as a 

function of production capacity within each equipment class. Note that water-cooled tube ice 

machines are combined with the other water-cooled IMH cube machines in Figure 3.3.7, since 

there were only two models within the harvest capacity range up to 4,000 lb/24 hours. The tube 

and cracked ice RCU models are shown in Figure 3.3.9 separately from the cube RCU models.

For continuous ice makers, the energy use shown in these plots has been adjusted 

consistent with the test procedure formula for adjustment of the energy use and condenser water 

use metrics based on ice hardness. 77 FR 1591 (January 11, 2012). Because ice hardness data 

was not available in any of the databases consulted, DOE assumed for this adjustment that ice 

hardness was 0.7 for flake machines and 0.85 for nugget machines. 

The current DOE standards and ENERGY STAR criteria that cover the cube machines 

are shown in the figures showing the energy use data for cube machines. Note that for the RCU 

plot (Figure 3.3.8), the indicated DOE standard is for RCU units without remote compressors—

the standard is 0.2 kWh/100 lb higher for equipment with a harvest capacity greater than roughly 

950 lb/day. The figures showing energy use data for flake and nugget machines indicate the “trial 

baseline” levels for each equipment class, since there are no DOE standards for this equipment. 

These are the baseline efficiency levels DOE used in the preliminary analyses for continuous ice 

makers. For more information about how DOE established trial baseline levels, see chapter 5.

The remote condensing flake and nugget machines (shown in Figure 3.3.14) include a 

number of data points that appear to have extremely low energy use ratings (less than 3 
3-32

kWh/100 lb). DOE expects that these data points represent models that are intended to be 

connected to compressor rack systems, and that these ratings do not include compressor energy 

use. 

Figure 3.3.6 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Cube Ice-Making Heads) 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice)

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Cube-IMH-A)

DOE Standard

Energy Star
3-33

Figure 3.3.7 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Water-Cooled Batch Ice-Making 

Heads)

Figure 3.3.8 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Cube Remote Condensing 

Units)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice)

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Batch-IMH-W)

DOE Standard

Cube Ice

Tube Ice

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice)

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Cube-RCU-A)

DOE Standard

Energy Star

Remote Condenser Only

Remote Compressor and Condenser
3-34

Figure 3.3.9 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Non-Cube-Batch Remote 

Condensing Units)

Figure 3.3.10 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Cube Self-Contained 

Units)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice)

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Non-Cube-Batch-RCU-A)

DOE Standard

Energy Star

Cracked Ice

Tube Ice

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Cube-SCU-A)

DOE Standard

Energy Star
3-35

Figure 3.3.11 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Water-Cooled Cube Self-Contained 

Units)

Figure 3.3.12 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Flake/Nugget Ice-Making 

Heads)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Cube-SCU-W)

DOE Standard

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Flake/Nugget-IMH-A)

Trial Baseline

Cuber Standard

Flake

Nugget
3-36

Figure 3.3.13 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Water-Cooled Flake/Nugget IceMaking Heads) 

 Figure 3.3.14 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Flake/Nugget Remote 

Condensing Units)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Flake/Nugget-IMH-W)

Cuber Standard

Trial Baseline

Flake

Nugget

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice)

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Flake/Nugget-RCU-A)

Trial Baseline

Cuber Standard

Flake, Remote Condenser Only

Nugget, Remote Condenser Only

Flake, Remote Condenser and Compressor

Nugget, Remote Condenser and Compressor

Flake, Remote Condenser w/Compressor Rack

Nugget, Remote Condenser w/Compressor Rack
3-37

Figure 3.3.15 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Air-Cooled Flake/Nugget SelfContained Units)

Figure 3.3.16 Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Water-Cooled Flake/Nugget SelfContained Units)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice)

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Flake/Nugget-SCU-A)

Trial Baseline

Cuber Standard

Flake

Nugget

Note: Selected Trial Baseline equal to Cuber Standard

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs Ice)

Harvest Rate (lbs Ice/24 hrs)

Energy Consumption vs. Harvest Rate (Flake/Nugget-SCU-W)

Cuber Standard

Trial Baseline

Flake

Nugget
3-38

REFERENCES

1. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. AHRI Members. (Last accessed 

November 16, 2011.) <www.ahrinet.org/ahri+members.aspx> 

2. Koeller J., and H. Hoffman. A report on Potential Best Management Practices. 2008. 

Prepared by Koeller and Company for the California Urban Water Conservation Council, 

Sacramento, CA.

3. Enodis, PLC. Excerpts from 20-F SEC Filing, filed by ENODIS PLC on 12/19/2003. 

Information found on-line via a Google search, at the following web address (last accessed 

November 19, 2011): <http://sec.edgar-online.com/enodis-plc/20-f-annual-and-transitionreport-foreign-private-issuer/2003/12/19/section6.aspx> 

4. Manitowoc Company. The Manitowoc Company signs definitive agreement to divest 

Enodis ice business (press release). March 30, 2009. Manitowoc, WI. 

<www.manitowocfsusa.com/?xhtml=xhtml/eno/us/en/pressrelease/2009_03_30_manitowo

c_company_divest_enodis_ice_business.html&xsl=pressrelease.xsl> 

5. Scotsman Industries. Warburg Pincus Completes Acquisition of Enodis Global Ice Machine 

Business from the Manitowoc Company: New Holding Company to be Named Scotsman 

Industries, Inc. (press release). May 18, 2009. Vernon Hills, IL.

<www.warburgpincus.com/PDF/Enodis%20PRESS%20RELEASE%205-15-

09%20final.pdf> 

6. U.S. Small Business Administration. Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 

American Industry Classification System. 2006. (Last accessed June 25, 2007.) 

<www.sba.gov/gopher/Financial-Assistance/Size-Standards/sizetablestandards.txt> The 

June 25, 2007 material from this website is available in Docket EE-2006-STD-0126. For 

more information, contact Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945. 

7. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand. Performance of commercial ice makers and 

ice storage bins. Part 3: Minimum energy performance standard (MEPS) requirements. 

2004. AS/NZS 4865:3:2008. 

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Department of Energy. Ice Machines. Current 

specifications adopted July 25, 2007 and effective January 1, 2008. (Last accessed October 

19, 2011.) <www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=archives.ice_machines> 

9. U.S. Department of Energy–Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. FEMP 

Designated Product: Air-Cooled Ice Machines. 2010. (Last accessed August 30, 2010.) 

<www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/eep_ice_makers.html> 

10. U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Federal 

Energy Management Program, Covered Product Categories. The air-cooled ice maker 

specifications are dated September 2009 while the water-cooled ice maker specifications 
3-39

are dated April, 2011. (Last accessed November 1, 2011.) 

<www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/eep_purchasingspecs.html> 

11. Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Commercial Kitchens Initiative. (Last accessed 

November 1, 2011.) <www.cee1.org/com/com-kit/com-kit-equip.php3> 

12. EnergySmart Grocer. EnergySmart Grocer Incentive Worksheet. 2011. (Last accessed 

September 19, 2011.) 

<www.energysmartgrocer.org/pdfs/PGE/2010_12%20EnergySmartGrocer%20IncentiveW

orksheet_v2.pdf> 

13. New York State Energy Research and Development Agency. Pre-Qualified Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment. (Last accessed September 19, 2011.) 

<www.nyserda.org/programs/Existing_facilities/pdfs/EESEFP_CommRefrigeration.pdf>

14. North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers. 2010 Size and Shape of 

the Industry. 2010. Chicago, IL. 

15. North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers. 2008 Size and Shape of 

the Industry. 2008. Chicago, IL. 

16. North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers. 2006 Size and Shape of 

the Industry. 2006. Chicago, IL 

17. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Energy Savings for Commercial Refrigeration. Final Report. June, 

1996. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Building Technologies Program. Washington, D.C. 

18. California Energy Commission. Update of Appliance Efficiency Regulations. 2004. 

Sacramento, CA.

19. Fernstrom, G. B. Analysis of Standards Options For Commercial Packaged Refrigerators, 

Freezers, Refrigerator-Freezers and Ice Makers: Codes and Standards Enhancement 

Initiative For PY2004: Title 20 Standards Development. 2004. Prepared by the American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy for Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San 

Francisco, CA.

20. Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Potential and R&D Opportunities for 

Commercial Refrigeration. Final Report. 2009. Submitted to the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program, 

Washington, D.C. 

<http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/commercial_refrig_rep

ort_10-09.pdf> 

21. AHRI Ice Maker Shipment Data, submitted to DOE by Karim Amrane, May 2011. 
3-40

22. Penney, K. Personal communication. PAX Scientific, Inc., San Rafael, CA. Email to 

Heather Lisle, Navigant Consulting, Inc. July 2011. 

23. Biel, J. Personal communication. Scotsman Industries, Inc., Vernon Hills, IL. Telephone 

call with Heather Lisle, Navigant Consulting, Inc. April 2008. 

24. Van Steenburgh, Jr., Leon R. Automatic Ice Cube Making Apparatus. U.S. Patent No. 

4,341,087, July 27, 1982. 

25. Shedivy, Scott J. et al. Ice Machine with Assisted Harvest. U.S. Patent No. 6,681,580 B2, 

January 27, 2004.